Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Euthanasia, again

I removed the sentence from the intro that insert the POV hot-button word "euthanasia" [1]. Knock it off. We've beaten this horse a million times. The term "euthanasia" is POV. The Pope and the Schindlers called it "euthanasia". The courts, the guardian ad litems appointed to hold Terri's best interests at heart, and Michael, all contend that this had nothing to do with euthanasia.

This sentence would be no different to insert the following sentence into the abortion article:

The Roe v. Wade decision generated massive debates about reproductive choices, women's rights, and murdering unborn children.

If you think I'll ever let you put this POV thing in, you are sadly mistaken. FuelWagon 16:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think your analogy holds, because euthanasia is not comparable to "murdering", "murdering" is moral characterization. Euthanasia is actually a euphemism for mercy killing, and "mercy killing" itself, is not as condemning as "murdering".--Silverback 16:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Euthanasia is illegal in the US. So, the analogy to "murdering unborn children" is accurate. Withdrawing life support is considered a patient's right to refuse treatment, which is completely legal in the US. There is no way you can neutrally say this has anything to do with euthanasia. None. FuelWagon 16:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

However illegal euthanasia is, it happens quite often and is socially acceptable in the US, and only raises a legal issue in extreme circumstances. Doses of morphine sufficient to supress respiration are quite common in suffering cancer patients. BTW, I thought murdering unborn children was legal in the US?--Silverback 16:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The definition of murder is an unlawful killing. As abortion is legal, it cannot be murder by the very definition of the word. — ceejayoz ^★ 23:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

ATTENTION: I will be glad to compromise, as we have in the past, but this statement is not saying that euthanasia either occurred or didn't -it merely reports that the Schiavo controversy sparked much debate (which is quite true). ~~ to that end, I will attempt to put your additions back in, as if they would add balance somehow, and then proceed to repair the damage you did. Is that compromise or what?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I put the entire text into the body of the article here. FuelWagon 17:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Text move: FuleWagon's dispute on this edit

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=22183639&oldid=22183540
• According to this diff, FuelWagon (who has contributed greatly to the article recently) has a great dispute here -and he has removed this text:

• • Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005) was a woman from St. Petersburg, Florida. On February 25, 1990, Schiavo experienced cardiac arrest and collapsed in her home, incurring massive brain damage and remaining in a coma for 10 weeks. The judicial and legislative battles over the removal of her feeding tube spawned considerable media coverage during the last few weeks of her life and sparked a fierce debate over euthanasia, bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights, both in the United States and worldwide. Schiavo's husband and legal guardian, Michael, took her to California for several months for an experimental thalmic stimulator implant in her brain. Within three years of her collapse, four neurologists had examined Schiavo and diagnosed her to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) with little chance of recovery.

• His edit comments were this: Stop inserting this POV assertion. you can't hide the term "euthanasia" in this laundry list, not give the courts, the guardians, or Michaels POV, and claim this is neutral in any way. I request further input, per the "text move" rule that Uncle Ed made recenty, and I'm moving the text in question here before reverting.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

euthanasia points of view

The version containing all the different POV's regarding "euthanasia" is located here. It reports at least four different points of view. The Schindlers (and the Pope), Michael, the guardians, and the courts:

David Gibbs III, the lead lawyer for Terri Schiavo’s parents, supported Vatican statements which condemned her treatment as euthanasia. Pope John Paul II stated that health care providers are morally obligated to provide food and water to patients in persistent vegetative states. This led to a challenge by Schiavo's parents, who requested a new trial about whether their daughter, as a devout Catholic, would wish to go against the Church's teaching. Judge Greer rejected their request.[2].

Schiavo's husband insisted that she had expressed her wishes not to be kept on life support with no hope for improvement.

During a trial in 2000, testimony was heard from witnesses on both sides to establish Schiavo's wishes regarding life support. The court determined that she had made "credible and reliable" statements that she wouldn't want to be "kept alive on a machine [with] no hope of improvement" and that her condition in a persistent vegetative state had "long since satisfied" the requirement that there be no hope of improvement. [3],

In 2003, guardian ad litem Dr. Jay Wolfson was appointed by Florida legislature to "deduce and represent the best wishes and bests interests" of Schiavo. He reported to Governor Jeb Bush that "the evidence that served as the basis for the decisions regarding Theresa Schiavo were firmly grounded within Florida statutory and case law, which clearly and unequivocally provide for the removal of artificial nutrition in cases of persistent vegetative states," and that the evidence regarding Schiavo's medical condition and intentions had been "deemed by the trier of fact to be clear and convincing." [4] "The reasonable degree of medical certainty associated with her diagnosis and prognosis is very high."

These are the various points of view regarding whether this had anything to do with euthanasia or not. You want to put one point of view in, you put them all in to keep the article neutral. anything else is POV. FuelWagon 16:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I personally, don't think her death was euthanasia, because there is no evidence that she was suffering, or for that matter would care whether her previously expressed end of life wishes were followed or not.--Silverback 16:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

self promotion

While I'm at it, how did this get in there? A link to a partisan website authored by wikipedia editor GordonWatts? Is this self promotion? I have a problem with this link being in the article. FuelWagon 17:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It is advocacy, I think, and belongs. ALL the links in that section are partisan. Bring it to the attention of the other editors and talk about it first -but before you do, make sure you understand why an item was placed there. That link is in no way out of place -other than, of course, my "conflict of interest," but I think it stands on its own -all things considered, escpecially considereing my deep involvement in this morass.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I will have to look up wikipedia's rules on self-promotion to see if this is a problem. I know of editors on wikipedia who have wikipedia articles written about them, and they do not edit their own articles to prevent any percieved "conflict of interest" from occurring. FuelWagon 17:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Kenneth O'Keefe edited his own article and it survived an RfD, although he did the editing as a anon.William Connolley also edited his own article. Jimmy Wales edited his own article. Chip Berlet edited his own article. These are the only editors with their own articles that I am aware of, and they all edited on their article page.--Silverback 19:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

There's several dozen of 'em: Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. Indeed, editing one's own article seems to be a pretty common sport; starting one's own article is by no means unknown, either. Alai 04:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

OK.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Not only is it pretty blatant self promotion (IMO), but it smacks of original research too. →Raul654 19:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

That controversial, self-promoting flake

Yeah, I mean me. ;-) Anyone need my help here? I guess my vacation is now officially over - asked for one week, took six. How's it going? Uncle Ed 22:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Uncle Ed. I'm glad you're still here. I'm not sure what the others think, but I feel that the atmosphere is much better than it was before you came along. So, even though very little has been posted to the special mediation page, and even though the article still has a lot of room for improvement (in my view), I think something has been achieved. Do stay around. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 02:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems like we hit a fairly stable point and the article remained unchanged for a week or so. Probably a record. Then Gordon nominated it for Featured Article status and that stirred it up again. apparently the links were not formatted "to spec". I think they look gawd-awful now, but that's just me. Other than that, a brief tiff over the intro that seems to have sorted itself out. The Featured Article vote looks pretty grim, though. The images have questionable copyright status. and people still complain its too long even after someone chopped it down to 50k. I think getting it to featured status may not be possible, but Gordon seems to have kept his optimism about it. Otherwise, I think it settled out for now. FuelWagon 06:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

If the article length Nazi's still dominated those who vote for featured article status, then blow it off. There is no way thoroughness should be sacrificed, and this subject doesn't merit spinoff articles.--Silverback 06:22, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

"apparently the links were not formatted "to spec". I think they look gawd-awful now, but that's just me." Huh? Is that good or bad -I mean, does the references section look better or worse, now, based on your personal overview? And, why do you think it looks (good/or/bad)? Thx. "...but Gordon seems to have kept his optimism about it." Thanks. I try.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I assume that the changes you've made to the links are needed to qualify for featured article status. I'm just saying that I think the requirement for FAS should be changed to allow inline links. What you're doing is fine. It's the policy that I would change. FuelWagon 06:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I think this article is probably the only place to get an overview of the entire history of what happened with Terri in one spot. FuelWagon 06:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree -I think the "links" standards are too high, but #1: What's done is done; & 2: The current format DOES show more info to the reader. Now, in regards to the "length" issue, I agree with SilverBack's recent post on the Fac Schiavo talk page: I think the "length" requirements are too LOW, and he (she?) suggests we withdraw the candidacy so Schiavo won't get hacked, as he puts it. Eh? I responded to that interesting comment with all KINDS of font color and bells-&-whistles, he heh he...--GordonWattsDotCom 06:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Infinite Editing Loop

I've been looking at the recent edits and reverts. Let me tell editors who believe that the article is biased towards Michael's POV: At the end of about two or three months of involvement in the editing process, I realized that the whole framework of discussion of this case is dictated by the vocabulary and characterizations chosen by the guardians ad litem and Judge Greer.

The case record often refers to "end of life" when Terri was not at risk of death. It refers to "life support" to include assisted oral feeding and drinking. There are many other such objectionable examples. But the record, especially the orders of the court are the enduring record. Online testimony, affidavits, and media interviews are beginning to disappear. We are stuck with the GAL's and court's POV such as it is. patsw 02:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

End-of-life refers to living-will choices. A patient has the right to refuse medical care if they wish. Florida law allows this to include a PVS patient to refuse being hooked up to a feeding tube in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Whether Terri was about to die or not didn't matter. A patient has the right to refuse medical treatment. And if they don't have a living will, the court can get witnesses to figure out what they wanted. FuelWagon 05:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

clean up after churn

I made some edits after the last churning. enjoy. FuelWagon 15:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

advocacy site categories

Look people, "right to live" is POV. No one ever argued that Terri didn't have a "right to live". The question is whether SHE would have wanted to continue or withdraw the feeding tube in her condition. The court did not come out and pronounce Terri did not have a right to live. There is no way you can use the "right to live" as a category and stay within NPOV policy. FuelWagon 19:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "right to life" is POV, but so is "right to die". When the two are placed side by side, they slightly neutralize each other, in my view. Actually, calling a feeding tube "life support" or "medical treatment" is also POV, and is contrary to the official teaching of the religion that Terri Schiavo herself practiced. Your recent version — "Advocating Terri Schiavo would have wanted to keep/withdraw feeding tub" — is more neutral, I think, but I find the sentences too long for elegance. I've tried "Advocating/Opposing removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding". Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Making references invisible

I found a few examples of something like (page 3 of 12 pages) near the beginning of the article. I thought it was a bit unencyclopedic to have them like that. I didn't want to remove them completely, as occasionally when editors are discussing problems on the talk page, they may want to know did Greer really say that, etc. However, for ordinary readers, I don't think it's necessary to give references like that. References, where they're necessary, should follow some agreed style. So I made them invisible, rather than deleting them so that no one could find them again. However, I found more in another section, and then in another, and another. I think I shouldn't hide any more until I know what people want. I don't want someone to have to put them all back tomorrow, and I don't particularly want to have to do it myself, either! Is it okay if I continue? It means that where people find that they want to give a full, professional-looking reference for some claim, they won't have to search in vain for the information. But I don't think they should be left in the article the way they are right now. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I made the references visible so our readers could see them. I cited page number and sometimes paragraph, however I do not know whether this is appropriate reference format. Sorry, but I tried my best.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I stumbled upon Wikipedia:The perfect article yesterday. I don't know if it answers the question of how to make the "perfect" reference. haven't had time to look yet. FuelWagon 23:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about this, but the style of simply listing all the references and not bothering to point out exactly where you got which piece of data from has worked for me before (see my user page for a list of featured articles I have worked on). I'm not sure, however, as this article is definitely far more controversial than any Beatles song or even Mozilla Firefox or Coca-Cola. Johnleemk | Talk 10:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably been a little more controversial than Coca-Cola. ;) Pretty much this story is nothing but 15 years of a war of words between Michael and the Schindlers, so the words are all you can report on. about the only thing both sides agree on is the very beginning incident (Terri collapsed and went into a coma) and the very last (Terri died). Almost everything in between is completely different points of view about what happened. FuelWagon 20:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Footnote3. Rich Farmbrough 09:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Legal documents

I've removed the legal documents section from the external links - all or most of them are linked from the article already (and if they aren't, given the length of this article, then they are probably of questionable value anyhow)

Shorten

Wikipedia is not a memorial so... 16.2 Memorial should be shortened or removed (at least two of the pictures anyhow). This isn't a scrapbook.

Also, if we have a side article for Government involvement why do we spend nine paragraphs on it here? The chronology of the Palm Sunday compromise is gone over extensively despite having a side article. Delete the side or eliminate the redundancy on this one.

As a general note this is a classic example of "too long to edit" and "so long I don't want to read." Enough time has passed that the fluff can start to go. Marskell 17:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the Sylvan Abbey photo isn't necessary, and one of the two photos of the grave could go. (Also, the formatting of the inscription – so big and centralized – could be removed now that we have the photo.) But I would personally favour keeping one of the grave photos, and the photo of the hospice (which could be made smaller). Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not attached to any of the photos in the memorial section. If we're reporting facts, we can transcribe the text from the gravestone into the article without a picture. Stuff like a picture of a CAT scan is hard to transcribe and needs a photo. See what the other editors say and go with consensus. FuelWagon 20:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Responding to the concerns:

Memorial Pictures: The recent Featured Article Candidate nomination here FAILED due in large part to using too many "Fair Use" images, so after I had more-or-less had about as much complaining as I could handle, I took out a million dollar loan from Loan-Sharks-R-Us Banks, fueled up my large boat, and sailed on over to Clearwater and took numerous pics that are released under GNU, and posted several and removed one similar fair use pic -and, note, please, that I had to post several of the new GNU pics so the "percentage of fair use" pics could be driven down --way down. Besides, ALL pics I posted relate directly to the text, and none are duplicates, so the remaining pics could not "duplicate" their usefulness. Don't blame me for this: Fair Use is legal, legit, and valid, but I did what I had to do to silence my loud critics, so take it up with them if you like. These editors who had such a problem with the lack of GNU pics all reside at (have made comments in) the talk page whose link I cited in this paragraph above --uh, or maybe I can print out the link in "long form" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo/archive1

The "side article for Government involvement" vs. the "nine paragraphs on it here" in Schiavo: Hey, I didn't write the whole article, and I was not responsible for this situation. Check with other for explanations for why they wrote this --and before you think to make any sustentative changes.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

should clarify

Gordon, tell me why this addition is relevant? [2]. I see no legitimate reason to say Greer "didn't clarify" his order. Do any of the main actors complain that Greer "didn't clarify"? Or are you just adding that language yourself? The way you've added this wording, you've presented it as undisputed that he didn't clarify with the implied language that he should have clarified. This is POV. Unless you source this wording, I am going to remove it. FuelWagon 00:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you ok, man? I not only cited a source, but I directly quoted Anderson. This quote may not have specifically mentioned that particular motion, but it was from the same time-period and relates because the Schindler attorneys (especially the one quoted here) were all the time complaining that Terri was supposed to -by law -supposed to be fed orally.

"As of today, Friday, 31 October 2003, I have just viewed a brief by Pat Anderson, Schindler family attorney, in which she claims that the courts did not order the withholding of regular food and water, as I have previously [incorrectly] claimed, and do so here, so, when I make these claims below, it is with the caveat that new information shows it [my claim in my news coverage] may not be true, but I will leave in these sections due to the uncertainty on this point. Anderson is quoted as saying: “This Court is aware the removal of the feeding tube is a separate act - in this case carried out pursuant to court order - distinct from the withholding of food and water thereafter. The later was not ordered by the Court but by Michael Schiavo.” (Attorney Patricia Fields Anderson, Esq., Fla. Bar. No. 35287; SPN 00239201, In Re: The Guardianship of Theresa Schiavo, Incapacitated, Schiavo vs. Schindler, File No.: 90-2908GD-003, 6th Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Fla. Probate Division, Brief served on 29 October 2003)" [3]

You can look on the Internet, and there is no mention of this particular quote, but I, when I used to full-time report for The Register, saw the brief with my own eyes. Oh, wait -I take that back: this google search shows other references, but they may have just been quoting The Register, which they trusted as a reliable news source on that issue.

Since you seem so concerned that I get a specific quote from one of the major players on the actions by the court -and not merely the law, I may have to update this section by adding one more quotation with reference and note. Thanks for the heads up.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

(quoting you, Wagon) "Unless you source this wording, I am going to remove it." I sourced it -in spades -duplicate or triplicate, if I recall correctly, and depending on which quote is sourced.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Typically only legally

Gordon, this edit [4] shows you using the phrase "typically only legally allowed" terminally ill patients as a way to imply that Terri's transfer was atypical or not legal. Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's concept of "weasel words". Since the courts saw nothing wrong with the transfer, since the guardian ad litems saw nothing wrong with the transfer, it cannot be stated as fact that this was either atypical or illegal. FuelWagon 03:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Wagon, this edit [5] shows me using the phrase "typically only legally allowed" terminally ill patients as a way to imply that Terri's transfer was atypical or not legal: That is correct; it was not typical: Since the state law on hospices was never challenged or found as "unconstitutional," the transfer was in contravention of it, and legal or not, certainly atypical: Every school kid knows hospices are for those at the brink of death; regardless of whether or not the guardians ad litem saw nothing wrong with the transfer, it is a fact that this was either atypical or illegal, but I'm not going to opine on which one: That would be POV: We are only here to report the facts, not speculate, and while "atypical" may seem like "opinion," it is NPOV: The transfer was actually illegal, and the reading of "atypical" actually UNDERstates the atypical-ness, very NPOV.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atypical "Not conforming to type; unusual or irregular." The placement of young, nonterminal patients in hospices is VERY unusual, irregular, uncommon, ATIPICAL (and, I think, illegal, but I will not state that as fact, for it is not within the realm of news to opine). ~~"Atypical" defined and applied with the plain-language meaning~~--GordonWattsDotCom 03:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

All you've got is your own personal research on the legality of the subject, and that is "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" and does not belong. You cannot personally declare something illegal and "report" it in wikipedia. FuelWagon 04:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't report it as "illegal"; I reported it as "atypical" or to that effect: See the page itself before you accuse me. Thx again, nonetheless, for your concern: you're right: To say it was "illegal" (whether it is or not) is POV.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"All you've got is your own personal research on the legality of the subject, and that is "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" and does not belong." From Original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources, we learn that what I said "typically only legally," is a one of the class of "Secondary sources [which] present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data." I "generalized," FuelWagon. Now, is that permitted? "The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication..." Clearly, the state law on hospices is reputable. I sympathize with your desire to quote the main players, but please understand that they did not bring up every point that concerns the subject, and readers want to know the full scoop. "Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere..." The "original research" to which you refer, was the state law, which said that you can't be admitted to a hospice without being terminal. In that context, maybe I should have said (like I've seen channel 28-TV in my area do), that it apparently violates the law, but I wanted to be less controversial. NONETHELESS, to make you happy, I'll try to find a quote from the family, and present it too -to compliment the law cite from a reputable source, the Fla. State Laws.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You reported the hospice "typically only legally allowed" terminally ill patients. the word TYPICALLY and LEGALLY imply that the transfer was neither TYPICAL nor LEGAL. If the schindlers filed a motion saying this, then we can report that, and report the court's response. To do this, you will need to provide a URL to some site that shows the Schindlers using this phrasing. Otherwise, I will continue to assume that this is original research, that this is phrasing YOU created and added to the article. FuelWagon 14:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Typically only legally, part 2

Gordon, did the schindlers challenge the transfer arguing that hospice's "typically only legally" accept terminally ill patients and that Terri didn't qualify? If "typically only legally" phrasing didn't actually come up in the court proceedings between the Schindlers and Michael, then it is not relevant. It may, at best, be moved to the "public opinion" section, but only if it is followed by a URL that shows SOMEONE CHALLENGING THE TRANSFER. If no one challenged the transfer when it happened, then you are inserting your own POV into the article. It isn't "public opinion" simply because it is YOUR opinion. You must find a NOTABLE SOURCE that questions the legality of the transfer. If NO ONE used that language, then YOU ARE DOING ORIGINAL RESEARCH. You can NOT point to some hospice law, and make claims that the transfer was ILLEGAL. We do NOT declare that someone did something illegal if it never even went to the courts or got a conviction. FuelWagon 14:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"Gordon, did the schindlers challenge the transfer arguing that hospice's "typically only legally" accept terminally ill patients and that Terri didn't qualify?" Yes, in so many words, and on repeated occasions: 1ST CITE: "The IME’s report also confirms that TERRI WAS NOT TERMINAL." From this official site, 2nd paragraph. 2ND CITE: Here, another reporter snatch it off of http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/PetitionToRemoveGuardian.pdf before that site went down, and we find that: "16. By definition a hospice provides only a “continuum of palliative and supportive care for the terminally ill patient and his or her family” and “[p]alliative care’ . . .services or interventions . . . are not curative.” Fla. Stat. § 400.601."-- See also the 3RD CITE, this quote: "But, what if the patient isn't dying or terminally ill?" from the official site, and I'm sure I could find more quotes showing that, YES, they did challenge said detention in hospice care: 4TH and best CITE: Here at official Miami.edu site, says the Schindler attorney told the court that: "31. Schiavo’s decision to hold Terri at Hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines was an improper use of the ward’s assets.[9]/ Terri’s attending physician, Dr. Victor Gambone, agreed at the evidentiary hearing before this Court in October, 2002, that Terri is not terminal and is not in any sort of crisis." 5TH CITE: CNN documents that the Schindler attorney(s) said that: "Their report shows what we have said -- that Terri was not terminal," said the Schindlers' attorney, David Gibbs. "Terri Schiavo was not in an end-of-life situation..." GordonWattsDotCom 19:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's a copy of this Revision as of 04:57, 7 September 2005, the diff in question:

In [[April]] [[2000]], in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" {{ref|CNN.com.story}} at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a [[Pinellas County]], [[Florida]] [[Hospice_care|hospice]] {{ref|AbstractAppealInfoPage}}, a facility, which in her state of Florida, is typically only legally allowed to admit terminally ill patients. {{ref|StateLawOnHospices}}

--GordonWattsDotCom 18:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

OK Gordon, I'm gonna try this again: Give me a link to the court motion that the Schindlers filed that questioned the legality of Terri being transferred to a hospice on the grounds that Terri was not "terminal" and a hospice is "typically only legally" used for terminal patients. The answer should be ONE LINK to a motion filed by the Schindlers. If it's a long motion, give me a page number too. FuelWagon 19:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I did some poking around all the links you swamped me with. The closest thing I could find was this link [6] bullet 31: "Schiavo’s decision to hold Terri at Hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines was an improper use of the ward’s assets"

That is NOT the same as saying Terri's transfer was not typical or not legal. This says the Schindlers POV was to motion that transferring Terri to a hospice was an improper use of her assets and that Michael should not be Terri's guardian. And the court POV was to dismiss the motion. FuelWagon 20:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The miami U link is more "reputable" -by itself, but the "Liberty" link is valid, and I know that because their link here is the same as WAS on terri's family's "official" site, as shown by this google cache, but the official site link is down, due to financial problems and server troubles. The "Liberty" link is better then the Miami U link as far as questioning the legality of placement in the hospice; Maybe I will find some more links after I drink a little soft drink and charge up. Be right back... PS: The other links "swamping you" are a good "general" statement from the "major playa'z."--GordonWattsDotCom 22:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wagon's Solution (I, Gordon, propose this)

Possible Solution per talk: <--~ by --GordonWattsDotCom 23:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

In [[April]] [[2000]], in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" {{ref|CNN.com.story}} at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a [[Pinellas County]], [[Florida]] [[Hospice_care|hospice]] {{ref|AbstractAppealInfoPage}}, amid objections by her family {{ref}LibertyLink.AndersonMotion}} that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients {{ref|StateLawOnHospices}} and prohibitted by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient {{ref|A.New.Miami.U.Link}}. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C.

--GordonWattsDotCom 23:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Note:If this version is used, then the citation to the state law {{ref|StateLawOnHospices}}, would have to be changed to the same law as the law that the motion cited (there are SEVERAL laws on hospices), but that would only require changing the {{note|StateLawOnHospices}} at the bottom in "references," not the "ref" in the article's text. ALSO, let's heed AlamamaBoy's suggestion to learn how to use notes and references, OK?--GordonWattsDotCom 23:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients" Do you not see how this is "Begging the question"? What does this have to do with the price of tea in china unless they admitted a nonterminal patient? There is no reason this should be here unless it relates to something else. It doesn't. it does nothing but imply that the hospice admitted a nonterminal patient. I won't support it. I proposed something that included the Schneiders’ accusations against Michael, but I will NOT support ANY version of text that you come up with that implies the law was broken when the courts NEVER ruled that. FuelWagon 13:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Swamped with Links

SWAMPED with LINKS
A few more possibly helpful links:

• World Net Daily, an Internet news agency says: "Usually, to be admitted to a hospice, a patient must be terminally ill and in the final stages of an incurable disease -- which Terri certainly wasn't, nor is she to this day. But Felos was on the board of hospice and made the arrangements. [paragraph break] Her family protested the move, calling it a kidnapping, and demanded her return to the nursing home, but Judge Greer upheld it and Terri had to stay where she was placed."

--GordonWattsDotCom 23:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• A Catholic site's editorial (good to show public opinion on the conservative, pro-life religious right) says: "Do you know of anyone who has been in a hospice for three years? I don't for only those who are going to die soon are admitted to a hospice. Terri, much to her estranged husband's and reptilian lawyer's wishes, has defied death. She has proven she is not a candidate for hospice but for around-the-clock loving treatment."

--GordonWattsDotCom 23:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• the bizarre! -Life Issues reports that: "This man was admitted to a hospice quite aware, relatively pain free and certainly not dying. Three days later the family is notified that he died. There are stories of the nurse even telling the family that she was increasing the dose of morphine and within a few hours the patient would be dead." Gordon: "My God!"--GordonWattsDotCom 23:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• HPA, one of the sites to which we link documents here in wikipedia reports (about 1/2 way down the page) that: "The United States Office of Inspector General has issued its warning to the public about questionable hospice agency practices...Hospices are not licensed to care for the chronically ill. In order for a patient to be admitted to hospice, the physician must "certify" that the patient is likely to die within six months due to a terminal illness. Terri Schiavo has no terminal illness; the only cause of death in her case would be her intentional murder by those intent on ending her life." <--~ a federal gov't warning about hospice practices, showing that Terri's placement was possibly illegal -definitely "atypical"--GordonWattsDotCom 23:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• More crackdown for fraud- CERTAINLY atypical, probably illegal: "by Mary Therese Helmueller, R.N....In fact, this hospice has recently been under investigation for accepting hundreds of patients who had no terminal illness."--GordonWattsDotCom 00:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Ibid. albeit this NEWS is admittedly from a "commentary/advocacy" site: "At almost exactly the same time Terri was illegally admitted to the hospice unit, a Medicare Fraud Bulletin was issued to investigators to look out for patients being prematurely admitted to hospice facilities in order to access those benefits. They also cited a large increase in fraudulent certifications of patients as terminally ill who were not, and therefore did not qualify for hospice care." THIS IS Fraud, -again! --big Dog, Grrr.....--GordonWattsDotCom 00:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Special for FuelWagon Since you're a fan of only quoting the major players, please find a use for this quote: It is from Prof. Robt. Destro, the co-counsel for both Gov. Bush and Terri Schiavo's parents in re: Terri's Law: "Attorney Robert Destro represented Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R) as well as Terri Schiavo’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, in the legal case." (paragraph two to the left and par. 5 % 6 to the right here)"In Bush v. Schiavo petitions to the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts, Destro emphasized what he referred to as Greer’s illegal position of simultaneously acting as Terri’s judge and surrogate guardian. “It was absolutely forbidden,” Destro stressed. “A judge is a fact-finder and decision maker. His job is to identify the law, hear the facts and decide the case. A surrogate stands in the shoes of the incompetent person and makes decisions on his or her behalf. A guardian ad litem is the legal representative of the incompetent person. This person bears the responsibility to argue on behalf of the client alone — without regard to the wishes or needs of others.” [paragraph break] Destro added, “Florida law expressly requires probate judges to see the incompetent patients whose cases are pending before them, but Greer never went to see Terri.”"--GordonWattsDotCom 00:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• reporter Ruby has this transcript for our review (bottom of page 51 & top of 52):

19 Q. Aren't patients admitted to Hospice Woodside

20 expected to die within six months?

21 MR. FELOS: Your Honor, I believe that

22 question calls for a legal conclusion by the

23 witness. I would object.

24 THE COURT: Overruled.

25 BY MS. ANDERSON: (That is, Pat Anderson, one of the Schindler attorneys.)--GordonWattsDotCom 00:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

52

1 Q. What's the answer to that question, Doctor?

2 A. I estimate that at Hospice -- Terry is the

3 resident who has been here the longest. They said they

4 have had no other resident that are in Hospice Woodside

5 a for longer period.

(Wow! VERY "atypical," maybe illegal?)--GordonWattsDotCom 00:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Note: The above transcript is ALSO copied on Purple Kangaroo, a GeoCities site which other editors have used before, and therefore probably credible. Here's the link.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

less is more

Gordon, basically, you gave me no new information. What you provided was equivalent to what I already mentioned, namely that the Schindlers filed a motion to remove Michael as guardian and submitted as evidence that Michael put Terri in a hospice. The rest of it is stuff that can only go in the public opinion article. You are quick to quote court testimony of one witness, now quote what the court ruled. Did they find the transfer to be illegal? If not, you cannot state as fact that it was illegal, nor can you imply by use of weasel words that it was illegal. your use of the word typical is also a weasel word. this entire case is atypical. I don't want fifty links. I don't want fifty websites. I don't want anything except for what the court ruled on the case where you quoted the testimony. That's it. One URL, and a one sentence summary of the court ruling. FuelWagon 01:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I state neither legal NOR illegal in the article. It's news. I made my suggestion right here PS: I've made a new template that will protect our article while it basks in the light of the front page. my commentary.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, then all you've got is a Schindler POV, which was asserted during the second guardianship challenge, which the court tossed. This is so irrelevant that it's a waste of space. At most, we could add something in the guardianship challenge that the Schindler's also listed Terri's transfer to a hospice as an abuse of funds (or whatever language was from bullet 31). immediately after that the same court POV can be reported to say the courts tossed the motion and Michael remained her guardian. Your sentence about the transfer is POV and is disputed by the court POV, and therefore cannot be stated as fact. Nor can it be implied with your weasel words about "typically only legally". We can change the paragraph to quote bullet 31 from the Schindlers and that's as good as you're going to get it. Nothing else you've added can be presented as undisputed fact. FuelWagon 02:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

---

proposed Oral feeding and the Second Guardianship Challenge

Oral feeding is not considered a life prolonging procedure, and on or about March 2, 2000, the Schindlers filed a motion to permit oral feeding of Schiavo. Since clinical records indicated that Schiavo was not responsive to swallowing tests and required a feeding tube, [21] Judge Greer ruled that insufficient nutrition and hydration could be ingested orally to sustain Schiavo and denied the request. [22] The Medical Examiner in his report was more definitive and concluded that Schiavo could not have swallowed and thus could not have received sufficient nutrition or hydration by mouth to sustain life. [23]

In 2000, the Schindlers again challenged Michael's guardianship. Their new evidence ostensibly reflected adversely on Michael Schiavo’s role as guardian, citing "that he had relationships with other women, that he had allegedly failed to provide appropriate care and treatment for Theresa, that he was wasting the assets within the guardianship account (according to the Schindlers, transferring Schiavo to a "hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines" [7]), and that he was no longer competent to represent Theresa’s best interests." [24] By this time, while still legally married to Terri, Michael was in a relationship with Jodi Centonze, with whom he had fathered two children. Michael denied wrongdoing in this matter, stating that the Schindlers had actively encouraged him to "get on with his life" and date since 1991. Michael said he chose not to divorce his wife and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to ensure her final wishes (to not be kept alive in a PVS) were carried out.

The court denied the Schindlers' motions to remove the guardian, allowing that the evidence was not sufficient and in some instances, not relevant. It set April 24, 2001 as the date on which the tube was to be removed.

---

Gordon, above is my proposal to change the article. I started with the version we had BEFORE your recent addition caused a lockdown and added the piece that is bolded. The guardian ad litem already mentioned that the Schindlers charged Michael with "wasting the assets within the guardianship account", and I've added the wording from bullet 31 of the motion that specifically calls out the transfer to a hospice. This is the best I can do with what you gave me. The rest of it is disputed and/or public opinion. Is there a consensus among the editors that this is satisfactory? FuelWagon 02:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

My addition of the paragraph you omitted did not cause the lockdown. Your reaction to a small portion of that paragraph (a facility, which in her state of Florida, is typically only legally allowed to admit terminally ill patients. [27]), and my reaction to your reaction caused it. Did you even look at my proposal here? I OMITTED the "typically" language -as you requested (in my proposal above, and linked below), and in the same proposed language, I also quoted Atty. Anderson. Since you repeatedly asked me to quote major player, and since I did that for you as well -to make you happy, now, what's the holdup?

Look, this is now covered TWICE in my proposed version. First, the guardian ad litem reporting the Schindler's accusation that Michael is "wasting assets", and second the Schindlers court motion saying it was because of "transferring Terri to a hospice after it was clear she was not terminal". That isn't good enough for you because you want to make the transfer look ILLEGAL. The only minor problem with that is THE COURTS DIDN"T FIND IT ILLEGAL. Accusations were brought to court and the court dismissed them. End of story. quoting testimony with the hope of implying this was illegal is POV. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. None of the guardian ad litems questioned the transfer. The courts didn't question the transfer. I propose that we report the guardian ad litem and the schindler's motion, giving two versions of this, and then report the court's POV that dismissed the whole mess. Calling attention to testimony that occurred DURING the trial in the hopes of making it look illegal doesn't jive with the fact that the court dismissed their allegations, so the testimony doesn't line up with everything else that occurred around this. You want to call attention to something that the courts dismissed, that the guardian ad litems had no problem with. And I won't support it. Having TWO versions (the guardian ad litem's report and the Schindler's accusations in their motion) already too much in my opinion considering that the courts threw the entire thing out. FuelWagon 13:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• MY PROPOSAL ~--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Wagon.27s_Solution_.28I_propose_this.29 <--~ HERE

The links I provided document that Pat Anderson, the Schindler family attorney at the time, did say what I quoted her as saying; I used two links to source that, one from Miami U. and one from Liberty to the Captives. The fact that you want to find excuses doesn't negate the fact that I properly sourced and verified my claims.

The sentence you added (according to the Schindlers, transferring Schiavo to a "hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines" [7]) is covered in the sentence that I added (was admitted to a [[Pinellas County]], [[Florida]] [[Hospice_care|hospice]] {{ref|AbstractAppealInfoPage}}, amid objections by her family {{ref|LibertyLink.AndersonMotion}} that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients {{ref|StateLawOnHospices}} and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient {{ref|A.New.Miami.U.Link}}). My sentence is a little longer, because it documents two claims (federal AND state laws that Anderson thought were violated).

Are you afraid to add the stronger language of Anderson regarding her objections regarding her concerns that the state laws were broken in admission; and, if so, why?--GordonWattsDotCom 06:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote

please vote on this proposed addition to the article [8].

support FuelWagon 02:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

mixed (Comments: You only supported one quote with attribution and source related to one of the attorney's objections, not the two relevant objections I include, so I give your version a 50%, which is like an F+ in standard grading; I have no problem with you stating the other players' views. I gave you plenty of links, and I am sorry that I could only find a few that relate to court action, but they are both legit, even the Liberty site, since it quoted the official Schindler site, which is down -but saved in a google cache here, but the google cache will disappear soon, so that is why we must put the links both in the article to keep from losing the written record.)--GordonWattsDotCom 06:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon

I have had it up to here with you regarding your desire to vote. The admin who locked the page told me that he would not take sides, but merely enforce the concensus, which is a factor below...

Since you have made genuine contributions to the article, prodding and pushing me to find additional documentation, I have overlooked and excused your behavior here, but you insist on having a vote on this issue, which I am sure will go in my favor of including ALL of (actually just both; "two") viewpoints of Atty. Anderson, regarding her representing Terri Schiavo's parents. (I am sure I will prevail in this minor effort to include her remarks, because my "religious" beliefs, whatever they are, tell me good will win in the end, and I think I am right to seek reporting of all the relevant facts.)

However, that leads me to my next point: I really hate to do anything that even "looks" like a personal attack, but your past actions have left me no choice: Here, in the archives, we find that you did not abide by the past concensus to include the traditional intro about A--B-C-D-and-E sparked fierce debate. "Our" side won the vote 4-2, in the end, but the remarks were still taken out by you, as I recall, and remain omitted from the intro.

Therefore, when you call for any "new" votes, I wonder if you are acting in a non-genuine way, and I am planning to ask for enforcement of all the concensus (making reference to the admin named in the paragraph at top, or others?) -like maybe we need to refer to past "accords and negotiations" as if they were laws that were passed. (Maybe you will ignore any new vote results, and this undermines my confidence in the process, because it has not fully disciplined you.)

I am not trying to be mean; I know you really care, and that shows: You did some "heavy lifting" as well, as the edit history shows, and I (and others) are very grateful for your continued assistance and vigilance. So, why not simply accept my version, which is short, concise, sources/verified/referenced --and with the assurance I have no problem including other views besides Schindler family attorney, Pat Anderson.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

So why not accept your version? Because it is POV. Because the courts never ruled that the transfer was illegal. because michael was never arrested and charged with anything illegal. because the courts never removed him as guardian because they thought this was improper. because none of the guardian ad litems even mention it as improper. because following npov policy means we report what the schindlers accused michael of and we report what the courts decided, end of story. You want to push more accusations into the article that have nothing to support them. That's why. FuelWagon 20:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to indent twice -even once is questionable... anyhow, you say that "following npov policy means we report what the schindlers accused michael of and we report what the courts decided," so since Anderson really said that in one court brief (which is only able to be documented as "official" so long as the google cache is still floating in cyberspace), then we report it -and the other actions/reactions of the other major players. End of Story, as you say. I'll let you write the "reactions" part if you insist, but you can't be too lengthy, ok? If you're not up to it, holler, and I’ll do it.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I proposed the guardian's POV using language from his report and the Schindlers’ POV using language from their motion. If Anderson is one of the Schindler attorneys, then that's just another Schindler POV. How is that "official"? It isn't a court ruling. The court's tossed the motion to remove michael as guardian. That is the "official" response to the Schindler's accusations against Michael. FuelWagon 20:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, what's up? You OK? You were the one who suggested we report all sides of the issue above. RE-read your own comments -and where I quote you. Of course the court eventually tossed the challenge to the hospice move: We know that because it is common knowledge, but we must report the facts as is -all the facts of her placement there, not just the ones you like. I have no problem with reporting the court's reaction and any comments the GAL may have made -if you can source it with a link. You also ask: "If Anderson is one of the Schindler attorneys, then that's just another Schindler POV. How is that "official"?" ANSWER: If the link comes merely from the Liberty to the captives site, then I fear you may question it's validity (in the same way you say The Register is not notable as a source of info, lol), but since this info can be verified as having been posted on http://TerrisFight.org at one time (via my google.com cache link), then it really is an official representation of Anderson's brief -i.e., it is no "made up."--GordonWattsDotCom 20:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

All sides are already reported: The Schindlers motion is quoted saying the transfer to the hospice was an improper use of Terri's assets. That's the wording from bullet 31 of their motion to remove Michael as guardian. They don't say the transfer was ILLEGAL. They say it was an improper use of Terri's assets. Big difference. And for the record, the points of view that need to be reported here are the Schindlers, Michael, the guardian ad litems, the doctors who examined Terri, and the courts. the point of view of the "Liberty" site or the register or wherever is irrelevant. The Schindlers point of view is reported by quoting their motion. It is also reported by the guardian ad litems report about their action against michael. FuelWagon 21:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Websites like "Liberty" or the "Register" are sources of information the same way the Wall Street Journal or the Chicago Tribune are sources. Sources are used to document the pov of the people. The points of view here are the Schindlers, Michael, guardians, doctors, courts, etc. These pov's may be reported in various sources. So, whether or not the Liberty site or the Register site said one thing or another is irrelevant to "report all the views" thing that I said. The "report all the views" means report what the Schindler's said, what Michael said, what the courts said, what the guardians said, what the doctors said. The source is just a place for a URL to point to to document that the POV is reported accurately. FuelWagon 21:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

And I just double-checked your court testimony. The only thing it proves is that Terri had been the longest patient at that particular hospice. You add the comment after it saying "possibly illegal?". Your testimony doesn't prove anything illegal happened. And the court dismissal of the motion would seem to follow that conclusion. Michael remained Terri's guardian. Michael was never charged with any criminal wrongdoing in transferring Terri to the hospice. the guardian ad litems never mention this transfer as something against the best interests of terri's wishes. All your court testimony establishes is the answer to the trivia question: Who was the longest patient at some particular hospice in Florida? Answer: Terri. So what. It is trivia and therefore irrelevant. FuelWagon 20:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say it was "possibly illegal?" -- I said that she was admitted amid CONCERNS FROM THE FAMILY and their ATTORNEY that it was illegal. What I suggested as an edit is both factually correct and, since it allows all sides to be reported on, also NPOV.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You said right here "maybe illegal?". The testimony you quoted says NOTHING about it being "illegal", that word is nowhere in that diff except where you add your personal comment. If they had CONCERNS that the transfer was ILLEGAL, then that testimony does not establish it. FuelWagon 20:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I expressed opinions in TALK, --not in the article. That is 1st Amendment-permitted. What I put in the article was reporting of facts -which -in some but not all cases -may agree with my own point of view. My point of view is unimportant. Reporting the facts, as they happened, is important. You are trying to bait me are you?--GordonWattsDotCom 21:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Just as a note, the First Amendment applies to Congress, not Wikipedia. — ceejayoz ^★ 23:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Facts? You added the following to the article:

In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" [25] at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice [26], a facility, which in her state of Florida, is typically only legally allowed to admit terminally ill patients. [27]

This qualifies as weasel words since "typically only legally" implies that Terri's transfer was ILLEGAL. There is no reason for this to be here except to introduce doubt. Read up on weasel words. FuelWagon 21:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Man, you've gone to 9 levels of indenting, and you STILL don't get it: I will be glad to remove the "typically" language and replace it with reporting what the major players said. Gee Whiz... There are TWO little colored boxes in talk here. One is what IS --one is what is PROPOSED, go it?--GordonWattsDotCom 21:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

STAY OF EXECUTION

OK, that's it. I just stumbled across THIS little gem where you give a link the title "STAY OF EXECUTION" with regard to Terri's feeding tube being removed. Keep pushing this POV and you will find yourself banned. I am completely serious. KNOCK IT OFF. Edits like this are completely unacceptable and completely non-negotiable. FuelWagon 03:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Now, I know you're losing it:

#1, the link title is hidden, so even if it were POV, that wouldn't be an issue.

#2, the title is a correct representation of the link: Go to that link, referred to in that reference, and see the first sentence, which uses that phrase: These are the judge's own words. Knock it off. You're nit-picking, and all you'll find are boogers.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Greer means it as in execution of the court's order. You mean it like Terri is being executed. It is unacceptable. FuelWagon 04:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"You mean it like Terri is being..." You don't know what I (or others?) mean: To prove it, I will not object to the new link title. I merely thought it was easy to remember, but -heck -you can name the links {{ref|Link1}} + {{note|Link1}} ... {{ref|Link123)) + {{note|Link123}} etc. ad nauseum, for all I care -but if it makes you happy, go ahead and keep the link title the way you want it.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"Greer means it as in execution of the court's order..." No, Greer was merely stating that he was responding to a motion by this title. Pat Anderson, the Schindler familty attorney, was the one who decided to use that language, but the judge used that language simply to acknowledge her motion, so there would be a proper paper trial and record of court events.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Vanity links

Gordon I've removed the vanity links to your website here. User pages for geocities and aol can be created by anyone and are considered non-notable. FuelWagon 04:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw that, but thx 4 mentioning. I will allow it this time, since there are other links that serve the same purpose, but please note that The Register was the ONLY news agency in Lakeland (my home town) covering one set of oral arg. hearings, and I will not brook removal of that link, if you can find it. That should be a fair compromise to show that I'm not a vanity link pusher, but, instead, a reporter for this article, as well as fair editor.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me point out that http://www.google.com/search?q=%22placement+in%22+hospice+schiavo&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N shows a routine search for links about placement in hospice -and Google.com says that The Register (one of "my" sites) was ranked fourteen in the world for sites with these terms: Hmm... Also, let me point out that actions on your part, whether retaliation or not, can be construed in that way, when you decide after the fact to start re-writing history to remove my involvement and news stories on which I contributed or were the editor. You aren't retaliating, now, are you, Wagon? My "vanity links" have high status, because they deserve it, according to this google search.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"User pages for geocities and aol can be created by anyone and are considered non-notable." Show me that in Wiki-policy; Let me assure you that when I write a story -or one of my writers, and I publish it, I make abcde SURE the story is correct; Can you say that for the New York Times, especially after scandal-after-scandal -where nutty reporters just made stuff up, eh... eh? You should have said: "User pages for NY Times can be written by any nutty writer, and are not necessarily correct." Besides, I'm not asking that anyone create an article about me: I'M NOT NOTABLE! However, I am a writer and publisher, like any other: BIG DIFFERENCE.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

you reverted without labeling it "revert" - Wagon:

At this diff: here you reverted. I know that because you REintroduced the spelling errors that I corrected -even if you were crazy, I know you wouldn't do that.

You not only:

1-- reverted without labeling it as a revert, you also

2-- reverted a NPOV sentence. in addition to that, you

3-- removed the "ref" tags without removing the "note" tags, and this messes up the link numbering, so that references after that point are not the same number as their relative notes.

you have shown a lack of NPOV here: It is true that a hospice is "a facility, which in [Terri's] state of Florida, is typically only legally allowed to admit terminally ill patients." If you don’t believe that, then go into any hospice here in Florida -any hospice -and try to find a cripple or handicapped, or brain-damaged person. You won't. All you'll find are people with terminally ill conditions, and at death's door: Therefore, it is true to say that Terri's admission was "not typical," but for your curiosity, I've provided links to show it is also illegal --VERY atypical, but I won't go that far.

for that reason, i'm reverting, and asking Ed for help, as he asked if I needed any.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Especially on a subject like this it might be wise to have a refute to the "brain-damaged woman" quote wherever its mentioned.... also "typically only legally" messes up the flow - somebody should decide whether it's typically OR legally (or if both expand on the point - as is it doesn't really make sense either - as it suggests that they admitted her illegally or something, ;) ) :). Anyway, fell free to disagree of course :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)